[dohboi]

Obama's proposals didn't 'cripple the economy', quite the contrary--it initiated the longest recovery (from the obliteration of the economy that GWB brought about) in the history of the country, iirc...

So why would you think that Biden's would?

But yeah, no one is likely to do anything really significant about GW, especially with folks like you constantly yammering that the economy is the most important thing on the planet, even though the modern industrial economy's primary function is to transform the riches and beauties of the world into toxic waste and trash.

But there's zero chance that someone who doesn't even believe basic climate science is going to do anything about gw, while there is at least some chance that someone who at least acknowledges the problem will do something about it

[Tanada]

People favor confirmation hearings for Supreme Court vacancy in 2020: Poll

A new poll conducted shortly before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that an overwhelming majority of U.S. adults of all political stripes supported holding hearings for a nominee if a vacancy opened on the nation's highest bench.

Marquette University released the survey results on Saturday that showed 67% of adults believed the Senate should hold a hearing if a vacancy occurred during 2020's race, with only 32% opposition — and similar strong numbers across Republicans, Democrats, and independents, who supported holding confirmation hearings at 68-31%, 63-37%, and 71-28% respectively. The poll was completed three days before the death of Ginsburg, the 87-year-old liberal icon who was nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed in 1993. Ginsburg earned praise from Democrats and Republicans upon news of her death.

Ginsburg’s death in the middle of 2020's election drew comparisons to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the 79-year-old conservative icon, Ronald Reagan appointee, and longtime Ginsburg friend, who died in February 2016 during the Democratic and Republican primaries. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill Scalia’s vacancy that March. But Senate Republicans declined to hold confirmation hearings or a vote, arguing that they wouldn’t confirm a justice appointed by a lame-duck president of the opposite party and that the winner in the 2016 election should fill the vacancy.

The new poll showed that the majority of U.S. adults disagreed with blocking Garland's nomination, with 45% of Republicans saying it was right not to hold hearings for Garland and 54% saying it was wrong, while only 15% of Democrats thought it was right and 84% thought it was wrong, with 20-78% among independents. The poll was conducted between Sept. 8 and Sept. 15 with 1,523 adults nationwide interviewed online and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.

With Ginsburg's death, a lot of scrutiny is being placed on what President Trump and others have said over the years about nominating and voting on a Supreme Court pick amid an election year, particularly after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Friday evening that he would put up a Trump nominee for a vote in the upper chamber.

Back in 2016, Trump said, "I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn’t go forward, and I believe I’m pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying."

Fast forward to Saturday. “GOP — We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” Trump tweeted.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who would schedule a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nominee, indicated that he would proceed with one if Trump selects a nominee. "I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from," the South Carolina Republican tweeted in response to Trump.

Obama said in 2016 that "to suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing let alone an up or down vote to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court — when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented." He wrote on Friday that Ginsburg "left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.”

NPR reported Ginsburg said that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” She said in 2016 that “the president is elected for four years, not three years. … Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

Large majorities of supporters of Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told Marquette University's pollsters the next Supreme Court appointment was somewhat or very important, with 85% of Trump supporters and 89% of Biden supporters saying so. Only 41% of adults said senators would be justified in voting against a qualified nominee “simply because of how they believe the Justice would decide cases on issues such as abortion, gun control or affirmative action,” while 58% said it wasn't justified. A smaller number (21%) said a senator would be justified in voting against a nominee solely because of the president’s political party, while 78% said it wouldn't be.

Biden said Friday that “the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.” During a 2016 speech, he said Garland “deserves a hearing” and that it was a “matter of the Senate fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.”

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in 2016 that “Senate GOP members need to attend meetings, hearings, and vote on Judge Garland." The senator said Friday, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Those two lines were copied from comments by McConnell in 2016.

“In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term,” McConnell said on Friday. “Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. … President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

LINK

[asg70]

It's a race to the bottom by virtue of the GOP's winner take all strategy.

If the democrats have any balls then if they take the senate they will increase the number of jurors to 15 and stack the court as retribution. Then we will hopefully see editorials like the above rationalizing it as the "will of the people" swinging from R to D.

[Subjectivist]

It's a race to the bottom by virtue of the GOP's winner take all strategy.

If the democrats have any balls then if they take the senate they will increase the number of jurors to 15 and stack the court as retribution. Then we will hopefully see editorials like the above rationalizing it as the "will of the people" swinging from R to D.

FDR suggested that strategy back around 1937 and the backlash just about destroyed his Presidency taking him almost two full years to recover his status with the voters.

[jedrider]

I think that everyday from now until election day ought to be a RBG celebration so that Republicans wouldn't dare rain down on our parade, would they?

Oh, I guess they would:

Senate resolution to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg blocked after partisan fighting over language
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-senate-resolution-schumer-cruz/index.html

The Republicans would need a dead Confederate to be able to muster any show of honoring an American hero.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I think that everyday from now until election day ought to be a RBG celebration so that Republicans wouldn't dare rain down on our parade, would they?

Oh, I guess they would:

Senate resolution to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg blocked after partisan fighting over language
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-senate-resolution-schumer-cruz/index.html

The Republicans would need a dead Confederate to be able to muster any show of honoring an American hero.

So the left should be able to always do whatever the hell they want AND whine constantly over pretty much everything?

Sure. That's exactly the way the world works.

[jedrider]

Read this list of accomplishments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state: 8 other strides she made for women
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/life/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-8-things-she-did-womens-rights/3502065001/

Women could even take out a loan or get a credit card without a man in 1970!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Read this list of accomplishments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state: 8 other strides she made for women
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/life/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-8-things-she-did-womens-rights/3502065001/

Women could even take out a loan or get a credit card without a man in 1970!

In the real world, they often couldn't. My mother, despite having significant assets from her inheritance from her mother, couldn't get a credit car without my father's signature, in the 80's -- not 70's. Why? Because she didn't have a paying job, even though she had one for years before she married and became a housewife.

And she was PISSED. And after ripping the face off an idiot bank manager, they lost her business, and her account -- which was FAR bigger than the credit line she would have had anyway.

So good for her, and you cheering for Ginsburg doesn't trump reality.

[jedrider]

Read this list of accomplishments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state: 8 other strides she made for women
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/life/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-8-things-she-did-womens-rights/3502065001/

Women could even take out a loan or get a credit card without a man in 1970!

In the real world, they often couldn't. My mother, despite having significant assets from her inheritance from her mother, couldn't get a credit car without my father's signature, in the 80's -- not 70's. Why? Because she didn't have a paying job, even though she had one for years before she married and became a housewife.

And she was PISSED. And after ripping the face off an idiot bank manager, they lost her business, and her account -- which was FAR bigger than the credit line she would have had anyway.

So good for her, and you cheering for Ginsburg doesn't trump reality.

Oh, you mean like blacks still denied civil rights despite having been freed in 1863. Yes, these things take time and I don't see how your story lessens Ginsburg's status one bit.

[Tanada]

Amy Coney Barrett is officially the nominee.

[Plantagenet]

Apparently Obama secretly had RBG over the White House for a meeting and he tried to talk RBG into retiring during his administration so he could appoint a liberal justice to the SCOTUS to replace her.

Ginsberg was 80 at the time, and had already survived cancer twice, but she didn't take the hint and resign during O's administration so he could make the pick.

how-obama-failed-to convince-ginsberg-resign

I guess RBG thought she was going to live forever.


Obama failed in his effort to convince RGD to resign during his term so he could replace her with another liberal justice on the SCOTUS

Cheers!

[Subjectivist]

Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court:

What a brave, wonderful Supreme Court pick by President Trump! President Trump has once again stood up for the U.S. Constitution with his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Judge Barrett has a demonstrated record of applying the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench. Her record shows that she will not only respect but apply the U.S. Constitution as written and intended by our Founding Fathers. And it would be a wonderful milestone that Judge Barrett would be the first conservative woman member on the Supreme Court. She seems to be a full spectrum conservative who is likely to be a force on the Supreme Court for years to come.

This nomination is another great victory for constitutional government and a blow to politicized decision-making on the Supreme Court. Most Americans agree with Judge Barrett that the Supreme Court should apply the law as it is written and leave the legislating to the people’s elected representatives.

The U.S. Senate should move quickly to work with President Trump to consider and approve Judge Barrett before Election Day. There is not much radical liberals can do to stop this excellent Supreme Court pick. Leftist threats of violence and court-packing should not slow the Senate one bit. And all Americans should reject the growing un-American campaign by the radical left to attack her family and oppose Justice Barrett because of her religious faith.

Judge Barrett cannot be confirmed soon enough.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-rel ... k-barrett/

[dohboi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQs22Kt-vZk

[Subjectivist]

If Barret is confirmed she will be the only member of the court who is not a Harvard or Yale alumni. This is the kind of diversity they don't talk about, how can you have a diversity of opinion if ever member of the court is from the same two small social circles?

[jedrider]

If Barret is confirmed she will be the only member of the court who is not a Harvard or Yale alumni. This is the kind of diversity they don't talk about, how can you have a diversity of opinion if ever member of the court is from the same two small social circles?

Yep, no need to have the Supreme court only made up of smart people. We need Diversity! And some more Catholics, perhaps.

[Plantagenet]

If Barret is confirmed she will be the only member of the court who is not a Harvard or Yale alumni. This is the kind of diversity they don't talk about, how can you have a diversity of opinion if ever member of the court is from the same two small social circles?

Yep, no need to have the Supreme court only made up of smart people. We need Diversity! And some more Catholics, perhaps.

Your suggestion that Judge Barret isn't smart because she is a Catholic and and a graduate of Notre Dame Law School is an example of anti-Catholic bias.

The Ds have a long tradition of anti-Catholic bias and sadly now its back again.


WARNING! BIAS ALERT! Ignorant and biased anti-Catholics are crawling out of their hidey holes again.....WARNING! ANTI-CATHOLIC BIAS IS BACK!

Cheers!

[evilgenius]

Donald Trump is well within his rights to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's only out of common decency that he would stop himself. And, as with all things, we rely upon what sort of a person the one in charge is.

[vtsnowedin]

If Barret is confirmed she will be the only member of the court who is not a Harvard or Yale alumni. This is the kind of diversity they don't talk about, how can you have a diversity of opinion if ever member of the court is from the same two small social circles?

Yep, no need to have the Supreme court only made up of smart people. We need Diversity! And some more Catholics, perhaps.

Harvard and Yale equals "Smart people" Surly you jest?.

[Plantagenet]

Donald Trump is well within his rights to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's only out of common decency that he would stop himself..

I don't see how "common decency" would require Trump to not name a SCOTUS judge.

The Constitution REQUIRES the President to name a replacement SCOTUS judge when a seat falls vacant, so its actually Trump's Constitutional duty as president to make the appointment and thats what he's done. It makes no sense at all to expect Trump not to carry out his official duties as President of the United States.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Donald Trump is well within his rights to nominate a Supreme Court justice. It's only out of common decency that he would stop himself..

I don't see how "common decency" would require Trump to not name a SCOTUS judge.

The Constitution REQUIRES the President to name a replacement SCOTUS judge when a seat falls vacant, so its actually Trump's Constitutional duty as president to make the appointment and thats what he's done. It makes no sense at all to expect Trump not to carry out his official duties as President of the United States.

Cheers!

Nor for the Senate to confirm or just outright decline to take it up (as they have already done once). It's obvious they can work in concert, so that argument doesn't hold water. And, it's the same Senate, too, considering they have six year terms.